Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm just interested to know what people think.

In America, McCain is keeping to his line that he will only pull out when its appropriate, while Obama seems to be changing his mind (contast the statement on his campaign page and what he says in this interview).

Although most of the current coalition members have not announced withdrawal plans. Australia and Poland are both planning a complete withdrawal by the end of the year.

So, what are your opinions? Should the troops return home?

Once Iraq is secure enough so it wont get taken over by terrorists then yeah they should come home. The thought of "pull them out right away!" makes me shutter. I think troops should stay in Afghanistan though.


Either way, Obama or McCain, troops will be staying in Iraq.

Originally posted by Trickster
and some are considering increasing their presence

such as?

Actually, you've got me there.

I said some, when really I should have said one: Macedonia is apparently planning on increasing its force by about 40 people.

Sorry for misleading you. Apart from that point, do you have any opinion on the question?

Hell yeah they should,its just another fake and phony war like vietnam was and just like that one was,was only instigated by our government so all these big businesses and corporations could profit from it.war means big money for these big corporations.

if the american troops actually WERE trying to help and organise afghanistan as well as protect her interests then they have an obligation to remain, after invading. however, seeing as they are NOT doing this but infact causing significant further and often deliberate harm, they shud go home.

Originally posted by Trickster
Apart from that point, do you have any opinion on the question?

soldiers should not be refered to as troops as it devalues the role they play for the nation.

Its very easy to talk about troops going far away, or troop casualties. Complete de-individualization of the brave people defending your nation. Not so easy to talk about sending an individual soldier, a living breathing human, with a face and a family, off to be murdered by strangers.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if the american troops actually WERE trying to help and organise afghanistan as well as protect her interests then they have an obligation to remain, after invading. however, seeing as they are NOT doing this but infact causing significant further and often deliberate harm, they shud go home.

QFT

I personally believe my nation's goals are not being served with our soldiers in afghanistan

Originally posted by inimalist
soldiers should not be refered to as troops as it devalues the role they play for the nation.

Its very easy to talk about troops going far away, or troop casualties. Complete de-individualization of the brave people defending your nation. Not so easy to talk about sending an individual soldier, a living breathing human, with a face and a family, off to be murdered by strangers.


Fair enough, I can see your point. That said, though, I'm just restating the question as it is commonly asked in the media.

Apart from the way I've phrased the question, do you have an opinion on whether or not the soldiers currently in Iraq should be recalled by their respective governments?

Originally posted by inimalist


Its very easy to talk about troops going far away, or troop casualties. Complete de-individualization of the brave people defending your nation. Not so easy to talk about sending an individual soldier, a living breathing human, with a face and a family, off to be murdered by strangers.
an

How is the word "Soldier" any different then the name "troop"?

Shall I instead say "Should the Soldiers come home"?

I care just as little.

Originally posted by Trickster
do you have an opinion on whether or not the soldiers currently in Iraq should be recalled by their respective governments?

lol, im just giving you shit

i think the answer is pretty self-evident. From any realistic or empirical stance, there is no reason to stay in Iraq with the specific exception of Pax Americana.

If one concedes that the need for resources and geo-political supremacy should drive foreign policy, then no. The death, murder, mayham, and nearly comical level of corruption are worth the fact that the American empire now has bases which can launch attacks against the next boogymen and is sitting upon a resource which other global powers are gobbling up. The people in the current administration and in neo-conservative think tanks truly believe America needs to play the role of the new Rome, so they act with the good of the empire rather than of the people.

If you care one iota for human suffering, then one has to rationally leave the country. Preventing it from becoming the next Afghanistan should probably be job #1.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
How is the word "Soldier" any different then the name "troop"?

Shall I instead say "Should the Soldiers come home"?

I care just as little.

a soldier is an individual

i guess there is "troop", but even that can be used in the plural

it might seem pedantic, but words have power

"Soldiers" is plural too.

A trooper is an individual. A soldier is an individual.

Troops is plural. Soldiers is plural.

They're the same thing.

lol, ok, whatever

Thank you. It's very important that I am right all the time.

you honestly don't see the differnece between the media refering to members of the armed forces as "troops" rather than as "soldiers"?

imho, its the ruling class talking down to the citizens, I'm sorry, the "folks", but hey, citizens and folks are the same thing.

Citizens, folks, "the people"... are all the same thing.

As are Troops and Soldiers. Troops is just a quicker, easier way then soldiers. There's nothing demoralizing about referring to them as troops. We've been calling soldiers troops since the word was first invented. Thinking it's somehow demeaning or devalues them is nonsensical.

actually, from what I know, you'd be hard pressed to find presidents during ww1/ww2 talking about troops as opposed to soldiers

like, are you saying that word choice has no effect on the way people interpret things?

Not those words, no. They're synonymous. Warriors, fighters, troops, soldiers. They all mean the exact same thing, minus a few technicalities..

Anyone who does interpret them differently, isn't too bright.

Probably shouldn't come home yet. We've ****ed up Iraq so much that we really have to stay their and fix our own mess.

That said, Kidrock is right. Neither McCain or Obama will pull troops out, we're going to be there for a while.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Not those words, no. They're synonymous. Warriors, fighters, troops, soldiers. They all mean the exact same thing, minus a few technicalities..

Anyone who does interpret them differently, isn't too bright.

I'd say anyone who has the same mental image elicited by "warrior" and "soldier" lacks experience

and no, i do not believe that two synonymous words are equivalent semantically, or, 2 werds ain't the same

Well... we can still be friends?

pals at least

At least McCain is honest when he says soldiers will stay.

Then again..false hopes win elections is the 2008 election motto.

well, at least you can go back to hating the president and i wont have to hear anymore stupid rednecks tell me that i'm a terrorist lover if i dont support the president in whatever he does. see? everyone wins.

Obama's said it would take at least 16 months to bring them all home, and that's assuming the best. He's said he'll take account what the Generals say and what's going on on the ground. He wants to get out of there as soon as possible. So he's been honest as well, he's never said he's going to get out immediately. He just wants out sooner than McCain does.

Originally posted by BackFire
Obama's said it would take at least 16 months to bring them all home, and that's assuming the best. He's said he'll take account what the Generals say and what's going on on the ground. He wants to get out of there as soon as possible. So he's been honest as well, he's never said he's going to get out immediately. He just wants out sooner than McCain does.

Disagree.

He said "16 months" that's it.

He demonized Hillary for the very position that he's now taking, in order to get votes.

But now he supposedly sees it's wrong and that if the commmanders say we need to stay and not set some deadline then we should stay.

With the wire-tapping on Monday, this today, and the faith-based programs stuff he's been talking, Obama is clearly trying to market himself to the center of the crowd.

By going against his very liberal voting record and all previous statements.

Originally posted by BackFire
Obama's said it would take at least 16 months to bring them all home, and that's assuming the best. He's said he'll take account what the Generals say and what's going on on the ground. He wants to get out of there as soon as possible. So he's been honest as well, he's never said he's going to get out immediately. He just wants out sooner than McCain does. Maybe he'll do it in 2012 to help his re election campaign. hmm

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Disagree.

He said "16 months" that's it.

He demonized Hillary for the very position that he's now taking, in order to get votes.

But now he supposedly sees it's wrong and that if the commmanders say we need to stay and not set some deadline then we should stay.

With the wire-tapping on Monday, this today, and the faith-based programs stuff he's been talking, Obama is clearly trying to market himself to the center of the crowd.

By going against his very liberal voting record and all previous statements.

There's nothing to disagree with. Fact - He said he WANTS to withdraw them within 16 months. He still wants to. He's saying now that it may be slower based on what's going on, he said that in a debate during the primary. His position hasn't changed, he's just clarifying more now than he did before that there is some room for alterations.

Of course, I'm not denying that now that the primaries are over he's going to aim towards the more centrist voters; he has to in order to win, McCain is doing the same thing. But this is one issue where he hasn't actually changed anything on. People saying this simply haven't been paying close attention to what he's been saying from the start.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
But now he supposedly sees it's wrong and that if the commmanders say we need to stay and not set some deadline then we should stay.

He never said this. He's always said he would take into account what the cammanders said, however that he wouldn't base the mission on what they say, their job is to do the mission that he sets out, not the other way around.

I think that this fight is indeed necessary, but it can be moved to a place of less casualties and resistance.

I would be very surprised if Obama pulls the troops out at all, never mind within the first 16 months. Or he could wait until 2012 and pull the "Republicans were preventing us from taking our boys home, but now I am determined to get it done!" speech.


I think Obama should fix his website as well now:

"and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

Since that is clearly not the case anymore.

Why? That's still his goal. He still wants to do that. He's now just clarifying that situations on the ground might slow that down. Dunno why this is a big deal, he's been saying the same thing for months.

How are we gonna flex our might if our troops are pulled out? haermm

Technically... regarding removal of forces the webpage says "will" not "wants to"...

Although the website may be outdated.

did they get the oil yet?

I say bring them home.

we entered into a war with Iraq in 2003. We won when the iraqi government submitted. The only reason to stay behind was to find Saddam Hussein, which we did shortly. They should have been brought home then.

American soldiers have no place being in the crossfire of a foreign civil war. It isn't our mess at all. It is Iraq's mess. The only thing preventing this civil war was the ruthless tactics of Iraq's dictator, Hussein. It just so happens that when we removed Hussein from power for other reasons, the one thing holding off this civil war was removed. It's not our fault at all.........we didn't structure Iraq's society, nobody did.........that's the problem. Instead of structuring a society to blend different groups of people, Iraq just used torture and fear to keep them apart. This civil war is the result of the way Iraq's society is structured, something we had nothing to do with.

Since America has no interests that will be affected by the outcome of the civil war, it's not our business. Whomever wins will deal with America pretty much the same as the other, be they shiite or sunni. We should just sit back and let the brothers fight it out in their back yard........when it's over, we can establish a relationship with the victor.

ps. why are people talking about terrorists? Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The only terrorists in Iraq are the ones that flocked there from neighboring countries to take terrorist actions against us for sticking our nose into Iraq's business when their civil war broke out instead of just packing our bags and coming home after the war was over.

My brother-in-law is an E8 sergeant in the US Army who has served two tours of duty in Iraq. Mr. President has no business making him stand between to groups of people shooting at each other, risking his life.......especially now that there are people bombing him and his buddies just for standing there watching when they aren't wanted.

Originally posted by red g jacks
did they get the oil yet?

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/06/30/iraq-oil.html

Originally posted by KidRock
At least McCain is honest when he says soldiers will stay.
.


There is no such thing in politics.

(auto quote)[/quickquote


The troops should come home, but they probably never will. Bush should have had them home a long time ago. And I believe both Obama and McCain have said that there is no timetable for the troops to come home

The troops should return home and the government should focus less on obtaining control of foreign oil, and make alternative fuel sources and transportation it's primary focus.

Originally posted by KidRock
I would be very surprised if Obama pulls the troops out at all, never mind within the first 16 months. Or he could wait until 2012 and pull the "Republicans were preventing us from taking our boys home, but now I am determined to get it done!" speech.


I think Obama should fix his website as well now:

"and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

Since that is clearly not the case anymore. Or if it takes 17 months, the Reps will go "Obama promised to get the troops out in 16 months, and it took him 17! He's a downright liar, we can't trust him! Just like we couldn't trust Clinton. Bush, we can though, he killed arabs, I mean, terrorists in our name."

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or if it takes 17 months, the Reps will go "Obama promised to get the troops out in 16 months, and it took him 17! He's a downright liar, we can't trust him! Just like we couldn't trust Clinton. Bush, we can though, he killed arabs, I mean, terrorists in our name."

Well couldnt the Democratically controlled congress just end the war? They just voted for another war funding bill.

Why not just reject it? No money = no war. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Looks bad internationally. There's a lot to look @ besides the money. This has consequences that won't be forgotten for a long time

Originally posted by KidRock
Well couldnt the Democratically controlled congress just end the war? They just voted for another war funding bill.

Why not just reject it? No money = no war. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Agreed, democrats suck.


Republicans just suck a bit more lately.

Originally posted by KidRock
Well couldnt the Democratically controlled congress just end the war? They just voted for another war funding bill.

Why not just reject it? No money = no war. Please correct me if I am wrong.

because they are pussies?

the difference between democrat and republican citizens lately is that republicans believe that the people who represent them are looking out for their best interests, can be trusted, and are servants of the people. in short, they are idiots.

Originally posted by Schecter

the difference between democrat and republican citizens lately is that republicans believe that the people who represent them are looking out for their best interests, can be trusted, and are servants of the people. in short, they are idiots.

Democrats believe the same thing..proof: Barack Obama

Originally posted by KidRock
Democrats believe the same thing..proof: Barack Obama

thats actually a good point

as low as the approval rating is for, I don't know the exact American terms, so I'll just say "house and senate", lower than those for Bush, Obama seems to have convinced people that he represents some crazy revolutionary new vision of America.

I think people may be reading a lot of what they want to see into him, but thats totally irrelevant.

My uncle is a retired army colonel. I did do JROTC.

I think they have other options. Sometimes, it's best that they stay longer, but sometimes they need to come home and rest.

The conditions in Iraq warrant speedy removal, I think. It is pretty dangerous not to have a strong military force, however. I think the troops should come home. They should alternate and have new forces come in until they feel it is finished moreso.

Does anyone know what the troops are doing anyway?

Originally posted by chithappens
Does anyone know what the troops are doing anyway?

Getting killed.

Originally posted by chithappens
Does anyone know what the troops are doing anyway? Trying to get a hold of governments in Asia-Middle East. Searching for foreign terrorists.